Point of Law: Section 13 of Act confers a power upon district Collector to initiate proceedings on being informed of unauthorised reclamation of paddy land.

JUDGMENT :

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act'), and the District Collector directed the property to be restored as paddy land. Revision petition preferred before the State Government under Section 28 of the Act has also been dismissed, and hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner is the owner of 12.40 Ares of property in Resurvey No.220/3 of Vazhakkad Village, Kondotty Taluk. On 28.07.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer reported to the District Collector that petitioner was attempting to convert his paddy land unauthorisedly and requested to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. Based on the said report, the District Collector initiated proceedings and, by order dated 04.11.2020, directed the petitioner to restore the paddy land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the revenue officials were directed to carry out restoration and to recover the expenditure from the petitioner by recourse to revenue recovery proceedings.

3. Challenging the order of the District Collector, petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 28 of the Act before the Government. By the impugned order dated 27.05.2023, the State Government dismissed the revision petition.

4. Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders of the District Collector, as well as the State Government, are bereft of any reasoning and are liable to be set aside. It was pointed out that the property is already planted with Arecanut palms, as revealed from the photographs produced along with the writ petition and that the petitioner had purchased the property in 1988, at which point of time itself, the land was left without any paddy cultivation or any irrigation facility. The learned counsel also submitted that the subject property is locked in between lands which have already been converted, and therefore, there is no possibility or feasibility of any paddy cultivation. The learned Counsel asserted that the authorities failed to consider the relevant factors, rendering the impugned orders perverse.

5. Smt. Devishri R., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the land is included in the data bank as paddy land, and when attempts to convert the paddy land by planting Arecanut palms were noticed, proceedings were initiated. It was further submitted that the scope of judicial review of orders of statutory authorities under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and that the circumstances do not warrant any interference. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner was issued notice under Section 13 of the Act and a decision has been arrived at by the District Collector after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that reports were also obtained, and even at the revisional stage, the petitioner was heard. The decision arrived at by the authorities, therefore, ought not be interfered with, contended the learned Government Pleader.

6. On a consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel and on a perusal of the two impugned orders, it is noticed that the District Collector initiated proceedings under section 13 of the Act, based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.07.2019. Subsequently, the Agricultural Officer also submitted a report on 05.02.2020 after conducting a site inspection. The report of the Agricultural Officer stated that unauthorised conversion of the paddy land was taking place and that the petitioner was planting Arecanut palms, which would prejudicially affect the adjacent paddy fields, the nearby streams and even the wetlands. It was also reported by the Village Officer that despite intimating the petitioner, he had not desisted from converting the property and instead continued the illegal acts.